Latest news with #Vanashakti
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC nixes retrospective green nods, but loophole still open
The Supreme Court on May 16, in the Vanashakti Vs Union of India case, struck down two of the Union government's office memoranda (OMs) and a notification that allowed retrospective environmental clearances to projects that began construction without prior approval -- but experts point out that retrospective forest clearances (which are very common) do almost the same damage. For example, the minutes of the latest Forest Advisory Committee meeting, held on April 15, available on Parivesh website, has several cases of ex post facto forest clearances considered by the Committee. These include: ex post facto clearance for regularisation of diversion of 11.562 ha of forest land for establishment of Integrated Steel Plant in Odisha; a similar clearance for diversion of 0.8935 ha reserved forest land for construction of a substation and electrification of 33 KV transmission line through Melghat Tiger Reserve; and approval for diversion of forest land for setting up of mobile towers in parts of Kashmir. FAC has provisions to penalise the violators who seek ex post facto clearance. For example, in the case of the steel plant in Odisha in which construction on the embankment and construction of a boundary wall had already taken place, FAC imposed a penalty for violation which is equal to net present value (NPV) of forest land per hectare for each year of violation from the date of actual diversion as reported by the inspecting officer with maximum up to five (5) times the NPV plus 12% simple interest from the date of raising of such demand till the deposit is made. NPV is the valuation or cost of forests diverted determined based on ecological role and value of forests which is graded based on quality and type of forests. The project proponent shall maintain/develop the green belts within the project area(wherever feasible) in consultation with the state forest department, the minutes dated April 16 added. HT reported on January 6 that FAC has granted post-facto approval for a Commando Battalion Camp in Assam's protected forest area, while simultaneously levying a penalty for violations of forest conservation laws. The approval pertained to the diversion of 26.1 hectares within the Geleky Reserved Forest, along the volatile Assam-Nagaland border in Sivasagar forest division and diversion of 11.5 ha of forest land in favour of Assam Police Housing Corporation for establishment of a second Commando Battalion Camp at Damchera. The case has a controversial history. Hindustan Times first reported on April 25 that MK Yadava, then Assam's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (now special secretary, forests, Assam) approved these two major forest diversions for police installations without prior forest clearance. 'Such regularisations stem from a 2018 guideline issued to states and UTs on activities which constitute violations of provisions of Forest Conservation Act 1980 and rules made thereof regarding common guideline to be followed by FAC/regional committees while considering such violations. The 2018 guideline laid down a graded approach depending on the violations. But the question is whether penalties prescribed or directed by Centre are a deterrent or not. Considering the number of such instances, it does not seem so,' said a legal expert who did not wish to be named. The Handbook on Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications issued under Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 1980 also has details of how ex post facto forest clearances should be dealt with. 'Proposals seeking ex-post-facto approval of the Central Government under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 are normally not to be entertained. The Central Government will not accord approval under the Act unless under exceptional circumstances that may justify the case,' it states. In case of public utility projects of the government, the penalty s is 20 % of the general NPV penalty. State government will initiate disciplinary action against the official concerned for not being able to prevent use of forest land for non-forestry purpose without prior approval of Centre etc, the 2018 guidelines state. 'But it is important to remember that the Forest Conservation Act 1980 only allows prior forest clearance. There is no provision for ex post facto clearances. Only the guidelines make way for it. But, once a forest area is cleared and a project has started construction, the damage is already done,' he added. On May 21, Debadityo Sinha, Managing Trustee, Vindhyan Ecology & Natural History Foundation, also a legal researcher sent a representation to union environment ministry about an Office Memorandum dated March 29, 2022 (not covered by Vanashakti judgement) which allows for fencing of the project site by boundary wall using civil construction, barbed wire or precast/ prefabricated components ; construction of temporary sheds using pre-fabricated / modular structure, for site office/guards and storing material and machinery ; and provision of temporary electricity and water supply for site office/guards only. Sinha has said the 2022 OM is inconsistent with the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Notification, 2006 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and with the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Vanashakti Vs Union of India case dated May 16. 'It is important to note that permitting these construction activities—whether permanent or temporary—without an environmental clearance (EC) leads to a change in land use and alters the physical and ecological conditions of the site, before any EIA studies have been conducted,' Sinha wrote to MoEFCC. Provisions of ex post facto clearances are however extremely important to the industry. Office bearers of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries expect the government to seek a review of the Supreme Court's judgement. 'We feel the government should file a review petition on the judgement. This is because the judgement will impact small mines and livelihoods of people in tribal areas,' said BK Bhatia, director general, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI). The Union environment ministry did not respond to a query on the court's judgment and whether there will be curbs on retrospective forest clearances. But, on May 26, the government issued an office memorandum stating, 'The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 16.05.2025, in W.P. 1394/2023 titled Vanashakti vs. Union of India and connected struck down the above mentioned Notification S.O. 804(E) dated 14/03/2017 and SoP dated 07/07/2021. The copy of the order which is self-explanatory is enclosed herewith for compliance.'
Time of India
25-05-2025
- General
- Time of India
Toxic PoP waste lying around Powai lake for over two years
More than 60 tonnes of PoP (Plaster of Paris) 'harmful' waste has been lying along the circumference of Powai lake, and it has not been removed for more than two years, a city environmental group, Vanashakti, has pointed out. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now People associated with the group expressed the feeling that the authorities may have forgotten about the mounds of waste which is harming the water body besides polluting the water, This has been brought to the attention of the senior BMC officials for urgent action, said members of the environmental group. The #SavePowaiLake citizens' movement has been gathering momentum and BMC has announced that it will set up a sewage treatment plant at the lake. 'At least three mounds of plaster of paris (PoP) remnants removed from the lake after idol immersion have been left along the lake boundaries for almost two years. Close to 60 or 80 tonnes of PoP idol waste is lying in the open inside the lake. Two monsoons have passed and the waste continues to remain uncleared by BMC. Almost 2 metres or more of the lake bed area near the steps is also saturated with PoP waste. This waste, along with chemicals and paints in it, will continue to leach into the lake and pollute the waterbody,' said activist D Stalin of Vanashakti. A senior official from BMC said that, at present, they have deployed machines to cut through the water hyacinth weeds from the lake, and other cleanliness measures will also be taken up to improve the water quality of Powai lake. He added that the civic hydraulic engineering department has also been pressed into service for this purpose. 'It's been many years since local residents and green activists have been urging the municipality and the state authorities to clean up our Powai lake. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Hopefully, this time around our citizens' movement should effectively help in saving the water body,' said Pamela Cheema of the SavePowaiLake movement. Meanwhile, citizens and nature lovers have decided to form a human-chain on Jun 1, ahead of World Environment Day at Powai Lake, and are planning to get as many participants as possible for this green cause.
Time of India
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC bars Centre from granting retrospective green clearances
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Friday said right to live in a pollution free atmosphere was a part of the fundamental right as it struck down Centre's office memorandum allowing ex post facto or retrospective environmental clearances to projects in violation of norms. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made scathing remarks in its judgement delivered on a plea filed by Vanashakti organisation and said, 'Union govt, as much as individual citizens, has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment.' The court said it 'must come down very heavily' on Centre's attempt to do 'something which is completely prohibited under the law'. It added, 'Cleverly, the words ex post facto have not been used, but without using those words, there is a provision to effectively grant ex post facto EC. The 2021 OM has been issued in violation of the decisions of this court….' The bench, therefore, declared the 2021 office memorandum (OM) and related circulars 'arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006'. Centre, as a result, was restrained from issuing directions for grant of ex post facto clearances in any form or manner or for regularising the acts done in contravention of the EIA notification.
Time of India
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC order on retrospective environmental clearances a step forward but gaps remain: Experts
Policy experts on Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court 's decision barring the government from granting retrospective environmental clearances but warned that loopholes in environmental laws still exist, and citizens must stay alert to protect their constitutional rights. In a landmark ruling on Friday, the apex court said the government cannot grant retrospective environmental clearances in the future. The court made it clear that projects started without mandatory prior environmental clearance cannot be legalised later. It added that violators who knowingly ignored the law cannot be protected. The judgement came in response to petitions filed by the NGO Vanashakti and others, challenging two government office memorandums issued in July 2021 and January 2022 which had created a system to grant environmental clearance to projects that began operations without prior approval under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by Stalin D, Director of Vanashakti, told PTI that citizens must now ensure the court's directions are followed. "The judgement clearly says the government cannot try and provide a safe haven for violators. So, we have to ensure that our constitutional framework is not violated in any way." Live Events "One more very pertinent thing in that order is that the people who violated this are not illiterate persons. They are educated, well connected, rich people who knew that they were engaging in a violation, which needs to stop now," he said. Prakriti Srivastava, a retired Indian Forest Service officer, said while it is a good order, knowing the history of environment ministry and project proponents, they will find a way around. She said post-facto approvals mean the damage is already done before clearance is granted. "Will these stop and the ministry obey the SC orders? Let's wait and watch Though knowing the record of MoEFCC, they give two hoots for SC orders and may blatantly disregard them," she added. Himanshu Thakkar, Coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, said the decision is welcome but should have come earlier. He also raised concerns about enforcement. "This is welcome, but the directions could have come sooner. It shows that our system is very slow to react." "Secondly, where is your credible monitoring system to ensure that this doesn't happen? The third thing is there is a bypassing of the law happening. For example, land acquisition is allowed, even when environment clearance is not there. If you have already acquired land, you are creating impacts, displacing people, you are making the project fait accompli," Thakkar said. "So, the Supreme Court also needs to put down more stipulations that you cannot acquire land without environmental clearance because once you acquire the land, then you get the right over the land and you can do what you want to do with it, which is again movement towards irreversibility. So, these kinds of loopholes are still there," he said. Debadityo Sinha, Lead - Climate and Ecosystems at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said the very purpose of the EIA process is to evaluate alternatives, assess environmental and social impacts and enable public consultation before any project receives approval. It is a fundamental safeguard that ensures development does not come at the cost of ecological integrity." "Granting post-facto Environmental Clearance undermines this entire framework, allowing projects to bypass due diligence and legal scrutiny. It effectively opens the floodgates for unsustainable, poorly planned developments, often in ecologically sensitive areas, where such projects would never have passed scrutiny in the first place. This not only sets a dangerous precedent but incentivises illegal construction in the hope of regularisation through backdoor clearances," he said. Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at law firm KS Legal and Associates, said the Supreme Court's decision may shake up the existing system but is not a cure-all. "By killing ex post facto approvals, it puts companies on notice that you start without clearance and you are gambling with your entire project with no retroactive bailouts. Smaller firms, less equipped for legal warfare, might fall in line, seeking clearances upfront to avoid ruin. Activists and communities gain a stronger edge to hold violators accountable, as courts now have a clearer mandate to reject post-facto fixes," she said. Guman Singh, Coordinator of Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, said they had opposed the government's move to allow retrospective environmental clearances. He said the Supreme Court's decision clearly reinforces that environmental laws cannot be diluted to legalise illegal projects and promotes ecological accountability.
New Indian Express
17-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC order on retrospective environmental clearances a step forward but gaps remain: Experts
NEW DELHI: Policy experts on Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision barring the government from granting retrospective environmental clearances but warned that loopholes in environmental laws still exist, and citizens must stay alert to protect their constitutional rights. In a landmark ruling on Friday, the apex court said the government cannot grant retrospective environmental clearances in the future. The court made it clear that projects started without mandatory prior environmental clearance cannot be legalised later. It added that violators who knowingly ignored the law cannot be protected. The judgement came in response to petitions filed by the NGO Vanashakti and others, challenging two government office memorandums issued in July 2021 and January 2022 which had created a system to grant environmental clearance to projects that began operations without prior approval under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Stalin D, Director of Vanashakti, told PTI that citizens must now ensure the court's directions are followed. "The judgement clearly says the government cannot try and provide a safe haven for violators. So, we have to ensure that our constitutional framework is not violated in any way." "One more very pertinent thing in that order is that the people who violated this are not illiterate persons. They are educated, well connected, rich people who knew that they were engaging in a violation, which needs to stop now," he said. Prakriti Srivastava, a retired Indian Forest Service officer, said while it is a good order, knowing the history of environment ministry and project proponents, they will find a way around. She said post-facto approvals mean the damage is already done before clearance is granted. "Will these stop and the ministry obey the SC orders? Let's wait and watch Though knowing the record of MoEFCC, they give two hoots for SC orders and may blatantly disregard them," she added.
